Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

Xios

Do you guys think it's justifiable? I personally don't think it is, and I'm certain that 99% of people have never actually seen what torture is actually like, I saw what Christopher Hitchens did for waterboarding, he didn't last 3 seconds on the board. Granted, he's not a hardened criminal/soldier, but still, he must have some resolve and he gave up instantly.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1216/667281-torture/

A majority of Americans believe that torture of suspected terrorists is justified, a new poll reported today, just days after a scathing report into the CIA's brutal treatment of detainees in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 58% of people believe that in general, looking ahead, the torture of suspected terrorists can be justified "often" or "sometimes".

39% said torture could not be justified, the survey showed.

Asked specifically if the CIA's treatment of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives in the wake of 9/11 was justified, the poll found Americans overwhelmingly in favour by a margin of almost two to one – 59% to 31%.

The poll findings follow publication of a US Senate report last week into the CIA's post-9/11 interrogation program which found the methods used were far harsher than previously disclosed and were not productive.

The interrogation techniques included beatings, rectal rehydration, sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, confinement in wooden boxes and threats of physical or sexual violence against family members.

The Washington Post poll was broadly in line with several other recent surveys which have indicated that most Americans are unmoved by the scathing criticism of the CIA program.

Tzardine

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

DrumSteve

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What?

Really?

In most cases the info gained is useless. Waterboard someone for 10 minutes and they will tell you whatever you want to hear to make it stop i.e. false confessions.

I can guarantee you, most americans believe torture is justified, once they don't have to be the ones to administer it.

Wolf Club

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

It clearly said in the report that the torture methods used by the CIA were completely ineffective in gathering intelligence. If it was in any ways useful there might be a grounding for your argument (I still wouldn't think so), but the fact that there isn't makes it a massive folly as well as completely inhumane.

Jawgap

No, because it doesn't work.

Talk to anyone involved in conducting interrogations and they'll tell you how counter-productive it is.

I heard one FBI agent who specialised in interrogation say that the most powerful weapon he knew of for getting someone to talk was a can of Coke.

Likewise, some of the most productive human source intelligence to come out in WWII came from the Direct Interrogation Centres where PoWs were given good food, nice conditions and decent medical treatment and they sung like canaries.

The rooms were also bugged so conversations could be listened to.

Xios

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What if you do torture an innocent person.... You think they're gonna just walk away?

What if the law makers are corrupt, and the laws are unjust, you think its OK for torture in an oppressive society?

what happens, when those with the power to torture others, realise that they can get people to say what ever they want, what if they use it to further their political goals or business interests.

ShowMeTheCash

America view themselves as the White knights, defenders of the plannet!
Of course they think torture is justified most people are idiots! And sure it's not like they will need to torture any Americans!

As long as it is some "Rag head" from the middle east then they could not give a monkeys!

But let's not really look at who are the real terrorist to this plannet... I dunno a country that has been complicite in every war over the last 10 decades??

Tzardine wrote:

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

No they just get bombed by a far!

Hoop66

If you resort to torture then you lose any right to a moral standpoint. In the case of the US, this is a huge part of what they've built their plans for a "better world" on.

They decide who's naughty (gets "regime change" in their stocking) and who's nice (gets billions of dollars of aid and weapons). So...the people making globally reaching moral decisions are themselves entirely immoral. Surprise!

shanered

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

I am pretty sure alot of people tortured didn't commit a crime which could be proven, no court, no trial etc...
There was a huge chance they were completely law abiding innocent people.
And you making the assumpution that their confession saved lives rather then ended lives.
More likely they could have named local people who ended up getting a drone strike on their family home kids and all causing more death than preservation of life imo.

Anyway, my thoughts are that the torture was not a positive thing in any form.
And supporters of torture are truley misguided individuals.
And unless you support torture down in your local police station as a form of interregation you should support torture of these people by the CIA.

JJayoo

Depends what kind of torture purely physical pain/psychological and depends on the reason.

seamus

It's not really surprising, it seems like common sense that torture is an effective way to get someone to talk, in the same way that execution seems like a common sense way to deter crime.

But what seems common sense or obvious can often turn out to be completely incorrect.

Torture is physical example of the Begging the question logical fallacy. In that, you torture someone to obtain information in the assumption that they possess that information.
But you don't know that they possess this information. You torture them, they provide the information, and you believe you were right all along. But you weren't.
You're using the outcome of the exercise (the provision of information) to assume the premise of the exercise (this guy has information).

In other words, if you knew they had the information, you wouldn't need to torture them. If you don't know that they have the information, then anything they tell you while being tortured is useless.

I imagine the numbers who believe torture is justified would be similar in many western nations. But that doesn't make it any more or less effective (or more or less justified).

cml387

I think you'll find that this poll only applies to Americans torturing other races.

The_Valeyard

If we lower our standards to that of the torturers and terrorists, then they win.

ShowMeTheCash

JJayoo wrote: »

Depends what kind of torture purely physical pain/psychological and depends on the reason.

You would do well in America they love this kind of thinking!
So if we tell you that this guy was a "bad man" you would be OK with it?

Bill Ratified - Let's break out the clamps!

Timberrrrrrrr

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

What if torture leads to the death of an innocent person?

mfceiling

To be fair, most Americans believe that America is the capital of the world and that eating junk food is good for you.

LucidLife

Surveys over three decades showed 49% of Americans knew they dropped the first atomic bomb....need we say more?

Timberrrrrrrr

LucidLife wrote: »

Surveys over three decades showed 49% of Americans knew they dropped the first atomic bomb....need we say more?

They tend to have some difficulties with science too

http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/scibytes/unbelievable

n a 2012 survey by the National Science Foundation, 25% of American respondents answered that the sun orbits the Earth [1]. A recent AP-GFK poll found that as many as 4 in 10 American adults doubt evolution, over half aren't confident that the Big Bang took place, just under 40% don't believe that pollution is causing climate change, and 15% don't believe in the efficacy or safety of vaccines[2]. Surveys like these are good at eliciting disbelief and a laugh, but they beg the question: Why do so many Americans reject scientific theories?

wilhelm roentgen

mfceiling wrote: »

To be fair, most Americans believe that America is the capital of the world and that eating junk food is good for you.

And 25% of them still think Elvis is alive

mikom

Land of the free and home of the brave (once you are the one holding the battery clamps).

Xterminator

ask leading questions - get loaded results. Polls are paid for and generally biased in favour of the sponsor.

But the classic scenario presented can be along the lines "there is a nuclear bomb going to go off in a city, and you have the terrorist in custody. does saving a million lives justify torturing the individual?"

most people will say yes to that. irish, american doesnt matter.

however in the real world its not black and white but grey. personally i do believe that there are scenarios where torture is justified.

What if torture leads to the death of an innocent person?

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

BuilderPlumber

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

mikom

Xterminator wrote: »

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

How do you torture a drone?

Uncle Ruckus

Most Muricans think the Earth is 6,000 years old, gay sex causes tornados, wrestling is real and McDonald's is an essential party of a healthy balanced diet also.

Timberrrrrrrr

Xterminator wrote: »

ask leading questions - get loaded results. Polls are paid for and generally biased in favour of the sponsor.

But the classic scenario presented can be along the lines "there is a nuclear bomb going to go off in a city, and you have the terrorist in custody. does saving a million lives justify torturing the individual?"

most people will say yes to that. irish, american doesnt matter.

however in the real world its not black and white but grey. personally i do believe that there are scenarios where torture is justified.

Right back at ya - What if the failure to torture leads to the death of innocent people?

There are people in Guantanamo now, RIGHT NOW who have been tortured, Never been charged, never had xa chance to speak to a lawyer and no sign of them getting out. Are they innocent civilians or guilty terrorists? Are you saying it's justifiable to grab someone off the street (obviously intelligence collected says the guy is a terrorist) and torture him to death on the off chance he MAY know something?

Timberrrrrrrr

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

If you have waited that long then the "imminent" threat has either been carried out or the mission has been canceled for another time/place/date.

DeadHand

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I dunno a country that has been complicite in every war over the last 10 decades??

Really? Every war?

The US was complicit in the Russian civil war, Spainish civil war and Biafran war or a dozen others I could name? They instigated or entered wrongly the World Wars?

Or is it more likely you are spouting lazy anti-American nonsense?

ShowMeTheCash

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In 99.99% of cases, torture is not justifiable. But in .01% of cases, it is when all else does not work. These cases are when ALL OF the following conditions are met:

-You have an ISIS/al Qaeda/Neo-Nazi/other fascist extremist who you KNOW is a member of the relevant terrorist organisation and who KNOWS something about an imminent terrorist attack that will kill innocent people or who knows where hostages being tortured or killed are located.
-The prisoner won't talk and you have tried everything from cutting him a deal to threatening torture.
-You try less severe types of torture first. Such as withdrawing of food and water until they talk.
-The prisoner has to be a member of a VERY deranged organisation Neo-Nazi organisation (ISIS, al Qaeda, etc.) who is known for their deliberate killing of innocent people.

I think I saw this movie?

LucidLife

DeadHand wrote: »

Really? Every war?

The US was complicit in the Russian civil war, Spainish civil war and Biafran war or a dozen others I could name? They instigated or entered wrongly the World Wars?

Or is it more likely you are spouting lazy anti-American nonsense?

There is a saying 'War is God's way of teachings Americans geography'. An American told me this while I lived in America

irish_dave_83

Torture itself is justifiable if managed responsibly. If it prevents the death of innocents then I see the justification.
The question of whether it has been managed properly should be paramount here and evidentally it has not been which is more worrying.

Dont get me wrong the act itself is horrendous and possibly for little gain, but if they torture a known member of a terrorist organisation and find that he does not have any information, that in itself is information gained.

As a previous poster said innocent people do not get tortured, and lets not be naive - if a US operative was captured I have little doubt that they would be tortured also.

JJayoo

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You would do well in America they love this kind of thinking!
So if we tell you that this guy was a "bad man" you would be OK with it?

Bill Ratified - Let's break out the clamps!

So instead of asking me to expand on my opinion you decide to ramble on :rolleyes:

Psychological torture should never be allowed.

However if it was 100% a fact that an individual had vital information, for example if a person had been kidnapped, and if that individual simply decided not to release that information, then I would have no problem in them applying some force.

The 2012 April Jones case in Wales case comes to mind. The guy who took her just decided not to talk.

elefant

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

if they torture a known member of a terrorist organisation and find that he does not have any information, that in itself is information gained.

As a previous poster said innocent people do not get tortured, and lets not be naive - if a US operative was captured I have little doubt that they would be tortured also.

This is worrying logic.

DeadHand

Torture is an inherently barbaric act regardless of who is carrying it out and who is suffering it. It should not be practiced by any person or state that claims to be civilised. It's an affront to the basic values of humanity.

It's ineffective and often counter productive. The vast majority of human beings under the duress of torture will eagerly admit to being the Virgin Mary.

irish_dave_83

elefant wrote: »

This is worrying logic.

How so? Whats your issue with it?

suicide_circus

Most Americans also think that the world is about 7000 years old and that God made it in 7 days. So much for what most Americans think..

DeadHand

LucidLife wrote: »

There is a saying 'War is God's way of teachings Americans geography'. An American told me this while I lived in America

That's amazing.

I have no idea what it has to do with my post though.

elefant

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

How so? Whats your issue with it?

You reckon torture is justifiable even in cases when the person doesn't have anything of value to offer in terms of information? Doesn't that seem in any way inherently wrong to you?

We think this guy is bad= We can do whatever we want to this guy

edit: And I have no idea what 'well an American would get tortured if he was captured' has to do with it at all?

Timberrrrrrrr

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Torture itself is justifiable if managed responsibly. If it prevents the death of innocents then I see the justification.
The question of whether it has been managed properly should be paramount here and evidentally it has not been which is more worrying.

Dont get me wrong the act itself is horrendous and possibly for little gain, but if they torture a known member of a terrorist organisation and find that he does not have any information, that in itself is information gained.

As a previous poster said innocent people do not get tortured, and lets not be naive - if a US operative was captured I have little doubt that they would be tortured also.

But they do

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/11/innocent-man-tortured-u-s-asks-wheres-accountability/

U.S. non-governmental agencies were allowed to address the U.N. committee today, and Murat Kurnaz (pictured above), who was tortured and detained by the U.S. at Kandahar and then Guantanamo over a period of five years, traveled to Geneva with his attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director Baher Azmy. He made the following statement:

My story is like many others. In 2001, while traveling in Pakistan, I was arrested by Pakistani police and sold to the U.S. military for a $3,000 bounty. In Kandahar, the U.S. military subjected me to electric shocks, stress positions, simulated drowning, and endless beatings. In Guantanamo, there was also psychological torture—I was stripped of my humanity, treated like an animal, isolated from the rest of the world, and did not know if I would ever be released.

Even though my lawyers proved that the U.S. knew of my innocence by 2002, I was not released until 2006. I lost five years of my life in Guantanamo.

mikom

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

As a previous poster said innocent people do not get tortured,

I presume the posters name was not Gerry Conlon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ff5KjZ7vM

ShowMeTheCash

DeadHand wrote: »

Really? Every war?

The US was complicit in the Russian civil war, Spainish civil war and Biafran war or a dozen others I could name? They instigated or entered wrongly the World Wars?

Or is it more likely you are spouting lazy anti-American nonsense?

You are really stretching here but America was involved in the Russian Civil war and Spanish civial wars happened more in the early 1900s...

As for the Biafran war, economic factors feature heavily in this conflict but sure America have no part to play in that.

You can be dilerately obtuse if you wish but lets put together a list

Border War
Occupation of Nicaragua
Occupation of Haiti
Occupation of the Dominican Republic
World War I
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Occupation of the Dominican Republic - AGAIN
Multinational Force in Lebanon
Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
Gulf War
Unified Task Force (Somali Civil War)
Intervention in Haiti
Bosnian War
Kosovo War
War in Afghanistan (Ongoing)
Insurgency in Yemen (Ongoing)
Iraq War
War in North-West Pakistan
2011 military intervention in Libya
2014 military intervention against ISIL

OK maybe they were not involved in every conflict, I had a fight with a neighbour a few months back I am pretty sure America was not involved there either!

Oh and here is the wiki link knock yourself out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Leeleather

Depends on the torture, being forced to eat hundreds of olives and having your genitals drenched in acid are somewhat different.

somuj

DeadHand wrote: »

It's an affront to the basic values of humanity.

.

What are the basic values of humanity and who decides them?

irish_dave_83

elefant wrote: »

You reckon torture is justifiable even in cases when the person doesn't have anything of value to offer in terms of information? Doesn't that seem in any way inherently wrong to you?

This guy is bad= We can do whatever we want to this guy

Well thats not exactly what I said, Im sorry you took it that way. What I meant was that the interrogators will suspect that this member of the terrorist organisation does have information, which is a fair suspision. If he is not giving any information and they then decide to torture him to get it. It is only after the torture that they can be convinced of that he doesnt have any information which inturn tells them that he either is very low level or there is no immediate threat etc - or im sure a number of other things.

Of course its brutal, and it should be used a last resort but it should not be banned, there would be less fear from extremists if it was, no?

As I said previously is should be managed better.

mikom

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Of course its brutal, and it should be used a last resort but it should not be banned, there would be less fear from extremists if it was, no?

These are the same fearful extremists that can and do make themselves into human bombs?

Tonyandthewhale

JJayoo wrote: »

Depends what kind of torture purely physical pain/psychological and depends on the reason.

Why if it has been proven to be ineffective across the board?

mad muffin

It's worked for me. I can't remember the last time I was attached by a terrorist.

irish_dave_83

mikom wrote: »

These are the same fearful extremists that can and do make themselves into human bombs?

The very same. Ask yourself the question would you rather be tortured and most likely sentenced to death or just blow yourself up(over very quick) for something you beleive in?

Streetwalker

This poll proves despite all the talk the terrorists are winning.

Timberrrrrrrr

Streetwalker wrote: »

This poll proves despite all the talk the terrorists are winning.

Winning what?

ShowMeTheCash

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The very same. Ask yourself the question would you rather be tortured and most likely sentenced to death or just blow yourself up(over very quick) for something you beleive in?

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Torture itself is justifiable if managed responsibly. If it prevents the death of innocents then I see the justification.

But it doesn't prevent the deaths of innocents...
As already stated, torture does not work, it does not provide reliable information so why use it?

mikom

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

The very same. Ask yourself the question would you rather be tortured and most likely sentenced to death or just blow yourself up(over very quick) for something you beleive in?

No point in asking me as I am an innocent man, not a terrorist.
But torture me and I might just give you whatever answer you are looking for, no matter how untrue it is...........

See how that works.